Jump to content

So What's Neoliberalism?

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I think it's a good idea.

I think some charities and independent public sector organisations nowadays have wage ratios so for example a chief executive pay is pegged at 10 times of the lowest paid worker.

Sounds like a good idea, to people like me, that are likely to benefit. Maybe it will work in some areas, might struggle to work in companies that employ thousands and the top paid worker is recruited from around the world. I dont know enough about it.

Many things sound great, when you dont know all the details, easy to do a Ted Talk with all the positives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, El Cid said:

Sounds like a good idea, to people like me, that are likely to benefit. Maybe it will work in some areas, might struggle to work in companies that employ thousands and the top paid worker is recruited from around the world. I dont know enough about it.

Many things sound great, when you dont know all the details, easy to do a Ted Talk with all the positives.

Maybe, but then it balances all the total negativity around raising the minimum wage.

I'm all for a more balanced view, and I do believe that neoliberalism means that positive views like Nick Hanauer's fail to hit the mainstream media. 

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Maybe, but then it balances all the total negativity around raising the minimum wage.

I'm all for a more balanced view, and I do believe that neoliberalism means that positive views like Nick Hanauer's fail to hit the mainstream media. 

If it is discussed enough on other  appropriate    platforms to generate increased interest and momentum, I think eventually it will reach further afield. It is just a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Janus said:

If it is discussed enough on other  appropriate    platforms to generate increased interest and momentum, I think eventually it will reach further afield. It is just a matter of time.

Maybe, but as far as I can remember it's usually discussed with a negative bias. (can't be done, can't be increased.) Same with citizen's income. With the coming of things like covid, robotics and AI, I think it needs discussing asap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Maybe, but as far as I can remember it's usually discussed with a negative bias. (can't be done, can't be increased.) Same with citizen's income. With the coming of things like covid, robotics and AI, I think it needs discussing asap. 

Citizens income, basic universal income will come around at some point. Finland do it, Spain are going to try it I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Citizens income, basic universal income will come around at some point. Finland do it, Spain are going to try it I think.

Finland tried it with 2000 people and it didn't really make much of a difference to anything apart from leaving people less stressed about money.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read that when Seattle introduced a higher minimum wage one unexpected effect was some people reduced the hours they worked.  
 

Is that neoliberalism in action?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

I thought I read that when Seattle introduced a higher minimum wage one unexpected effect was some people reduced the hours they worked.  
 

Is that neoliberalism in action?

 

 

Shhhh. That's not the narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:

I thought I read that when Seattle introduced a higher minimum wage one unexpected effect was some people reduced the hours they worked.  
 

Is that neoliberalism in action?

I thought there were positive effects, but there would be.

I would be infavour of increasing monies paid for work, whilst reducing benefits.

People get WTC and spend it on what they want. These days there is a big pressure to look good, nice car, mobile, laptop and cosmetic surgery. Whilst we cannot afford free school meals for all and activities in schools should be free, some even buy books.

Yes increasing wages will put pressure on inflation, which is good for everyone that owns a home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, the_bloke said:

Finland tried it with 2000 people and it didn't really make much of a difference to anything apart from leaving people less stressed about money.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

Actually, leaving people less stressed about money is a big difference, with a lot of knock on effects like mental health and general wellbeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Anna B said:

Actually, leaving people less stressed about money is a big difference, with a lot of knock on effects like mental health and general wellbeing.

True, but there are huge differences in peoples attitude to money and budgeting. Some have  £1000/wk (and more) and get into debt, others can live well and even save on £100/week.

Obviously there are huge differences in circumstances, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2021 at 22:50, ECCOnoob said:

Define "decent" in your opinion.

 

This is a simplistic argument that gets bandied  about all the time but it's not so easy.   To workers in developing and third world countries the so-called "low" and "poverty" wages paid in westernised countries could feed their families  for weeks.

 

I'm sure it would be very easy to massively up everyone's wage to what people believe  is fair,  however everybody else above them would also expect the same. After all, in no reality are you going to have supervisors and managers happy to sit there earning only a few pennies more than their subordinates nor are you going to have any business choosing to put a dent in their profit line as making profit is the sole purpose of setting up a business in the first place. 

 

So then comes the question, after you have upped everyone's wage, as what happens with inflation?    When everyone's wage ups so does the company outgoings and so does the cost of the the goods.  Those extra pounds in ones pocket suddenly is not as valuable as they once were and round and round it goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I've by no means read the whole thread, but this jumped out at me as particularly obvious nonsense. It's become an article of faith on the economic Right that pay increases for workers are Bad because they Cause Inflation. Which is handy if you're one of the bosses, because that completely coincidentally means there's more money for you, and that is not Bad and does not Cause Inflation. The economic Right also think house price inflation is Good but can't explain why that's different to the Bad sort of inflation. If you're going to try to persuade people on a tenner an hour that it's for their own good and necessary for their ultimate boss to have net assets of $200bn and a $65m private jet, and that any alternative to that will be their downfall and lead to Bad Inflation and their own ruin, then you would need to be able to demonstrate that for each dollar or pence hourly increase in pay they get, they will lose the same amount in higher prices. Can you do that? I very much doubt you can.

 

That kind of half-baked thinking is predicated on the assumption that if wages go up then the cost of products and services must go up in line, because it would be impossible for executives and shareholders to take home less as a way of balancing out the overall costs of a business. But that is possible! It was the case not long ago in fact. Through most of the 1960s and 1970s, the wage share of GDP was up near 60%. The wage share is, unsurprisingly, the percentage of GDP that is paid in wages, as opposed to share dividends and executive pay. By 1996, the wage share of GDP was under 52%. The other end of that ratio is executive and shareholder 'pay', which goes up as the wage share goes down. But how horrifying for the goose if it's realised that what is good for it is also good for the gander! Better keep telling the gander that it's in his own interest to have smaller and smaller slices of the cake. Gotta watch that waistline! (said Mr Creosote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.